From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 23:11:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:20:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Polar Orbiters? - Hall


>From: James Oberg <joberg.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:49:41 -0600
>Subject: Re: Polar Orbiters?

>>From: Ray Dickenson <editor.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:26:12 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Polar Orbiters?

>>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:29:20 -0500
>>>Subject: Polar Orbiters?

>>>Has anyone investigated references to at least one polar
>>>orbiting satellite discovered during the Sputnik era,
>>>and presumed therefore not of Earthly origin?

>>Eleanor, thanks for the incentive,

>>Some folk might have already found this quote from:

>>http://www.violations.dabsol.co.uk/probe/probepart2.htm

>>"Dr. Luis Corralos, a Venezuelan astronomer working for his
>>National Communications Ministry, discovered an unclear image of
>>an unknown object apparently trailing Sputnik II, the Soviet
>>satellite launched on 4th November 1957. Investigations were
>>instigated but no public explanation has ever been given... on
>>4th January 1960, not one but two objects of sizeable
>>proportions were detected in polar orbit. These objects were
>>estimated to weigh 15 tons each (compared to the largest US
>>satellite of that time which weighed only 500lbs or the Soviet=92s
>>3000lb.)... US National Space Surveillance Control Centre
>>(NSSCC) formally admitted that an unidentified =91satellite=92 was
>>in polar orbit, although with a rider that a natural explanation
>>would probably be forthcoming at a later date. It wasn=92t, or at
>>least none was made available."

>>Trying for hard details of polar orbit sats. is otherwise a no-go
>>area, probably 'cos many of them (post 'mid-60's) were spy sats.
>>and presumably still verboten to discuss (see "Perceptions" index
>>for CIA).

>Amateur skywatchers have been tracking polar orbiting vehicles
>for decades, see their activities described at:

>http://www.satellite.eu.org/satintro.html

>The problem with the 'violations' site you mention is it's
>hopelessly crammed with ancient bunk and modern mistakes. The
>most relevant misinformation re the 'polar orbit sightings' in
>1960 is the claim that military launchings into such orbit
>didn't begin until later. Some UFO writer just made that up --
>possibly confident that nobody in his target audience would have
>the competence or concern to check on the claim -- but
>(surprise!) it's not true: Discoverer launchings into polar
>orbit began in 1959 (there were eight that year). Many ejected
>recoverable capsules, but most of these went off course and
>entered new orbital trajectories.

>This sort of factual atrocity is no stranger to the 'violations'
>sight, as even a cursory overview can show. In its section on
>'astronaut UFO sightings', it has a picture of an instrument
>boom extending from an Apollo spacecraft and calls it a
>'cylinder-shaped UFO'. It also has another picture attributed to
>Apollo-12 of a classic decorated discoid object that 'NASA won't
>comment on' -- false, of course, as NASA tells anybody who asks
>that the image is of the sunlit end of a jettisoned S-IV-b
>rocket stage, suitably airbrushed by a British UFO magazine to
>remove the edges.

>So I suggest you need to dig more deeply into this interesting
>historical claim.

>James Oberg


I have my differences with Jim Oberg on many particular things
related to UFOs and the history thereof, but his knowledge of
and direct experience with NASA and spaceflight must be
respected.

He may not always be "right" in his interpretations, but who is?

We should be aopreciative and respectful  of his contributions
to this List.

If we think he is - or may be - wrong about something, then it
is our duty to present concrete reasons why we think so.


 - Dick